What is up with the naturalistic fallacy?
Posted on: March 25, 2008 - 5:46am
Offline
What is up with the naturalistic fallacy?
What is the current state of the naturalistic fallacy? How does it stand amongst modern scholarship? Is it still a serious obstacle in the way of naturalizing ethics? If you have any thoughts or direction for someone wishing to learn the current status of this idea, please share.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
- Login to post comments
What is the naturalistic fallacy?
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
You mean Moore's Open Question Argument?
It's had a several critiques, analysing the argument and what valid conclusions can be drawn from it.
The first chapter of This Book takes a look at it.
The analysis shows various assumptions and flaws in Moore's reasoning and it certainly doesn't have the knock-down affect on naturalistic ideas of morality required for his naturalistic fallacy. I think that the argument can be modernised and re-written, but the most it can do is provide the following challenge:
"If moral goodness means X people who understand morality find this questionable, can you account for their finding this questionable?"
Sorry Strafio, I thought I was referring to Hume's ought-is problem. I was incorrectly associating the title "naturalistic fallacy" with Hume's problem. Have you read any literature on problems that may arise in naturalizing ethics dealing with Hume's ought-is problem?
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
Ohhh, you mean the whole "Cant derive an ought from an is" arguement?
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Yeah. That's what I meant to ask about.
Still a fallacy, last time I looked.
Definitely still a fallacy. For those who aren't familiar with this subject the observer of the natural world draws ethical conclusions from observation. Thus, the fallacy assumes that if a behavior is "natural" then it is "good."
I come from a background of anthropology and primatology, so an example that's discussed in my field a lot is infanticide: in some species, infanticide is a pronounced social behavior that is theorized to be a male reproductive strategy, but just because it occurs in the natural world does not make it prescriptive. Hanuman langurs, for example, are higher primates whose groups in the wild are given to high levels of infanticide, but this infanticide fits specific patterns of male migration and status. It can't be used to prescribe behavior because behavior (especially of large-brained, flexible animals) is very adaptable to different circumstances. Monkeys and apes almost never behave the same way in a zoo as in the wild, and even in the wild different groups of the same species can have wildly different behavior repertoires. So yes, it is the Is/Ought problem. Fortunately ethics as I understand it, even when naturalized, apply to human behavior, not Langurs. In a sense, we're smart enough (ideally) to pick and choose when it comes to behaviors we observe in the wild and whether or not they are appropriate in a social context.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Like the naturalistic fallacy, it's controversial. An interesting argument:
All my beliefs are true
I believe p ought to q
it is true that p ought to q
Your first premise begs the question. You must first know that "p ought to q" to know that all of your beliefs are true.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
unless of course you can make p--q and stop anybody else from saying anything different.....then anything ought to whatever you want it to
Fear is the mindkiller.
There was a catholic college up the road from where I went to college. They had an opening in their philosophy department for years and years that they couldn't fill because they were advertising for an ethicist that could defend organ transplants with Natural Law Theory.
If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre
You should definitely read Richard Carrier's book Sense and Goodness without God. It provides a thoroughly natural system of ethics without committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Here's the issue: The naturalistic fallacy is deriving an "ought" from an "is". But we do this all the time. For instance, if you want to keep your car running, and your car needs an oil change, then you ought to go have it changed.
The naturalistic fallacy applies more to situations in which someone derives what they ought to do from facts of nature (For instance, if someone justifies rape because it is an evolutionary adaptation). But this is a non-sequitur: What we ought to do should be based on what we want and how to get what we want. And what all human beings want, above all else, is happiness. Not temporary pleasure, but fulfilling, lasting happiness.
So if one wants to be happy (and all people do), one should avoid commiting crimes (to stay out of prison) and doing things which we would not want others to do (This leads to self-respect, a key part of happiness)**. So rape is wrong for both of these reasons.
**You cannot respect yourself if you are not the type of person you would respect.
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Yes, depending on how you define naturalism and on how you define the God-world relationship (assuming that you are a believer).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead